Residents vent about Salt Lake City's residential housing zoning proposal

SALT LAKE CITY — A proposal to expand housing options within residential zones in Salt Lake City was met with fierce opposition from dozens of residents during a meeting on Tuesday.

And even some of its larger supporters have a bone to pick with a new provision that city leaders are currently leaning toward.

The Salt Lake City Council held the first of two planned public hearings on a proposal called "expanding housing options," which would adjust building sizes and types allowed within six primary residential zones: R-1, R-2, SR-1 and SR-1A, and two subsections of these.

It would allow property owners to build single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and four-unit townhomes on smaller lots by increasing maximum heights by a few feet, if they so choose. Approximately 33,000 properties exist within these zones, which cover three-fourths of all residentially zoned land in the city.

The idea is that it could expand units within the city's vast residential neighborhoods, potentially reducing housing costs. It's influenced by similar zoning adjustments in growing cities in North Carolina, Oregon and Texas.

Going too far?

More than 40 people signed up to speak at Tuesday's hearing, far more than most proposals that end up in front of the City Council.

A large chunk of those who attended spoke up against it, citing a list of concerns.

Many identified themselves as homeowners, arguing that it could increase traffic and break up existing neighborhoods, among other things. They feared that it might only help increase the bottom lines for developers and landlords, while failing to deliver on Salt Lake City's hopes.

It's too broad an approach, allowing for housing types much larger than what was planned in some neighborhoods, said resident Katherine Scruggs.

While she said she supports housing options to keep housing affordable, she wondered why there aren't corresponding plans for roads, parking, utilities, schools and other infrastructure for the potential increase in housing across city neighborhoods.

"My concern is we're making significant long-term changes without adequately addressing the consequences," she said.

A few others questioned the successes in other cities, saying that the zoning change alone won't fix the situation. Some called on the city to scrap the plan or postpone a decision until additional provisions are included.

Added provision sparks backlash

Many of those who spoke in favor of the proposal either represented housing groups or called themselves aspiring homeowners. They see the proposal not as a solution, but as a step toward tackling a growing affordability problem in the city and region.

What was originally proposed could add upwards of 5,000 units based on available land options in the selected areas, the group Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities previously estimated.

That was before the City Council conducted a straw poll to add a measure that requires owner-occupancy for at least one dwelling per development site, which was added after the city's planning commission recommended the proposal without one in September.

Adding the provision has squandered development interest in other cities, and could lead to only a few dozen properties being affected by the city's proposal, said Turner Bitton, founder of Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities, before Tuesday's meeting.

Related:

Having ownership and rental developments allows options for people seeking housing, while the owner-occupancy provision could reduce the ability for developers to receive funding to get projects off the ground, he told KSL.

It's a key reason why advocates called on the City Council to remove that element if they accept the proposal.

"Owner-occupancy is a bad policy choice, and it will hurt the very people that this policy is designed to help," Bitton said. "It puts a 'renters are not welcome in these neighborhoods' sign out in front of these houses."

'Please help us'

A second hearing is scheduled for Nov. 17. That will begin at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 451 S. State. The planning commission also held two hearings before its recommendation, which drew many of the same arguments.

City councilors reaffirmed their desire for an owner-occupancy provision earlier in the day, along with a few other technical items ranging from spacing between buildings to building setbacks.

Members bickered at times over the different adjustments. Everyone wants affordable housing and more families across the city, but it's unclear exactly how to accomplish it, said City Councilman Dan Dugan.

"That's where I'm struggling with the whole proposal. … We have that vision, but we're not quite sure if this is the mechanism to get to that vision, but we also don't know what the mechanism is to get to that vision," he said.

That has factored into some of the indecision, or what was also referred to as "analysis paralysis," at one point in the meeting.

The city is tentatively slated to vote on the proposal during its Dec. 1 meeting, but that could change if the City Council feels it isn't ready to vote.

"I'm looking forward to continuing the dialogue with my fellow council members and with the community," said City Councilwoman Sarah Young after Tuesday's hearing. "We are stronger when we hear from more individuals. ... Please help us."